Option 1 and 2 are obvious. Option 3 is a service done by some Orthodox to receive Catholics and/or Non-Chalcedonians. It is not chrismation since the prayers are of reconciliation and not of the gift of the Holy Spirit for the first time, and the anointing only occurs on the forehead.Option 4 is only given to Catholics in my understanding.

This is controversial in some circles. I once had an AA priest tell me that he had never heard of a "non-chrismation chrismation". The fact remains, however, that both the form of the rite (ie, only anointing on forehead and nowhere else) and the text of the prayers (reconciliation rather than initiation) indicate that this rite is in fact a different one from the chrismation that takes place immediately following baptism. In addition, the fact that Orthodox who need reconciliation with the Church are reconciled through this Option 3 rite (even though they have already had an Option 2 chrismation) is pretty strong evidence, to me at least, that this is something different from the Option 2 chrismation ... otherwise we would be profaning Option 2 by repeating it for an Orthodox in need of reconciliation with the Church. My priest made it clear enough to me that Option 3 was different from Option 2, but there are many, many Orthodox -- clergy and laity alike -- who think that Option 2 and Option 3 are the same thing -- wrongly, in my view.

Hypo-Ortho

I was received (with my family: wife, 4 children) into the OCA from the Byzantine-Ruthenian Unia by Confession, Chrismation (and *not* merely anointing on the forehead!) and Holy Communion some 25+ years ago. The priest receiving me used the Hapgood book, every dot and tittle (including formal public rejection of the Latin errors), but it was as if he were receiving a Latin of whose pedigree and credentials he was unsure, and not a Uniate who had already been Chrismated in the Byzantine Rite, even though not Orthodox. I had all the necessary documentation, but it was of little meaning to this priest, who carefully explained that even the "baptism" I had received as a Uniate was an empty form that needed to be filled. He may as well have used Baptism from the very beginning and started me over with that.

I consulted Archbishop Lazar Puhalo over what this priest had done, and the archbishop assured me he was acting correctly and never to second-guess my manner of reception.

I know exactly what you mean, Justin, but at the time I couldn't distinguish and didn't know better, and I was very much drawn to the then Archimandrite Lazar's Synaxis Press publications, which helped me immensely and which are praised in many Orthodox circles to this day.

In any event, let's not make this a discussion about Archbishop Lazar, whom, I believe, has finally found peace by his reception into canonical Orthodoxy. My private correspondence with Vladyka was very helpful at the time--I shall not forget that.

That Orthodox began rebaptising Catholics out of hatred might be too strong a word, but it certainly was out of defensiveness and mistrust. It only happened after the Latins started creating the Unia; hence the Orthodox bishops stopped acting economically so that the faithful would know that there was a BIG division between the two.

For an objective look at this troubling period for all, read the excellent and short work, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under the Turks by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware (subtitle might be slightly different), Oxford Press, 1964. Try to get it from interlibrary loan. It is fascinating.

You're right, I'm sorry that I brought the off-topic thing up! (though I'm glad he was able to help, whatever my feelings about him ).

Back to reception... I am suprised exactly how anti "re-baptism" some are in Orthodoxy. I understand the position that says we should only chrismate, but I've already seen Orthodox theologians imply that insisting that Catholics be "re-baptised" comes from "hatred". Does anyone here have this impression? That when we traditionalists insist on an Orthodox baptism for Catholic/Protestant converts, that we do so because we "hate" those groups?

I was Baptised in the United church as an infant. I was received into the Coptic Orthodox Church by confession, Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion a little over a year ago. It wasn't out of hate or Protestants or a statement that I was previously unbaptised, it was just that I had been Baptised by sprinkling, when the rites of the Orthodox Church call for tripple-immersion, and obvisouly not be a priest, so I was Baptised according to the rites of the Church, since the first Baptism was not according to the Rites of the Church. If the first Baptism fully 'counted' to God, I'm ok, I don't have to worry about it, I'm covered either way. In my Church Catholics were received by Chrismation until recently. That's becuase the bishops had no knowledge of Latin Rite Catholics, and Eastern Catholics Baptise by Immersion. When H.H. Pope Shenouda III, our current Pope, visited the Churches outside of Egypt, which had started to form under our previous Pope, he learned of the practices of the Roman Catholics, and insisted that those baptised by sprinkling be received by Baptism. Clearly that decision wasn't out of hate since Eastern Catholics are still received by Chrismation, and since Pope Shenouda and Pope John Paul sitll get along well, it's just an insistance that the ancient rites of the Church be followed.

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

Jonathan, then Pope Shenouda should've been around my old Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite Catholic church (since closed) when I was growing up. Baptism was done exactly as the Latins did it there, except that, not having its own baptismal font, a large glass salad bowl was usually used instead!

I'm told that many Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite parishes have since "cleaned up their act," but it's done on a piecemeal basis, parish by parish, and there are still some which obstinately cling to their heavily-Latinized "old ways."

"...I've already seen Orthodox theologians imply that insisting that Catholics be "re-baptised" comes from "hatred". Does anyone here have this impression? That when we traditionalists insist on an Orthodox baptism for Catholic/Protestant converts, that we do so because we "hate" those groups?..."

I would say that re-Baptism of Catholics by Orthodox and viceversa, was related to political issues and antipathy between communities (and sometimes hatred) in many cases and not only because of religious reasons.

The Latins were the ones who started re-baptizing Orthodox (even against the directives of the Popes) and the Greeks responded that way. During WWII, thousands of Orthodox Serbs were re-baptized in a shameful episode of history. Re-Chrismation of Orthodox was also a very common usage of the Latins. I have talked to some traditionalist Latins who say that Orthodox should be re-chrismated because Orthodox chrismation is not performed by a Bishop as in the Roman Church.

I have seen re-baptism of Catholics who convert is sometimes inspired by antipathy, among those who practice it, because at the time when both communities rebaptized converts, it was often done to degradate the other Church, in a way that Byzantine Catholics who were received were treated as Latins who had to abjurate their errors, and Latins were seen as something similar to Protestants along with the Lutheran and Calvinist sects.

Does anyone here have this impression? That when we traditionalists insist on an Orthodox baptism for Catholic/Protestant converts, that we do so because we "hate" those groups?

Not at all. I think those who insist on Orthodox baptism of converts are merely trying to insure that baptism is done right.

I often wish that I had asked to be received by baptism. I know my reception by chrismation was canonical, but I would have liked to have been baptized in the Orthodox Church.

I also think the baptism of converts sends a strong message that the Orthodox Church is alone the historical Church founded by Jesus Christ. In these days of false ecumenism, that is a message that is needed.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Hypo-Ortho

Amen! And those brought in other than by the 'initiation' Sacraments also lose out in not having an Orthodox godparent to assist them on their journey.

Even when received by Chrismation, there is *still* a sponsoring "kum," or godparent, if you will. Mine was the priest who received the public abjuration of my Byzantine Catholic [sic: Latin] errors, Confession, profession of Faith, and administered Absolution, Chrismation and Holy Communion.

Since my reception into Orthodoxy 25+ years ago, I have been the "kum" to many others coming into Orthodoxy from the Unia and from the Latins by Chrismation. Some have come into the ROCOR by Chrismation as well, as late as last year in Connecticut in one instance, btw.

Option 3 is a service done by some Orthodox to receive Catholics and/or Non-Chalcedonians.

What is the origin of such a thing?

It is merely the rite the Greeks used to receive apostates: uniting people who had been Orthodox and left, and came back. The OCA modified the prayers slightly in order to reflect the idea that someone in an apostolic Church that has chrismation (Catholics or Non-Chals) is being reconciled to the fullness of the faith, not totally entering it anew for the first time. The rite was introduced offically in 1989 I believe. Erickson describes it in some articles I will check for in SVS Quarterly. He actually argued against it and for a return to receiving Catholics merely by confession and profession.

Ebedjah

I am not even yet a catechumen preparing for baptism/charismation, but mearly an eager Protestant inquirer. I recently asked a priest at an Antiochian parish where I had been attending how I would be received into the church, should I choose this option. I was baptized by full immersion (single immersion) by a Protestant pastor, "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Still, this priest told me that I would need to be re-baptized, since the baptism was not by someone of apostolic succession. Then I spoke with an OCA priest, and he said I would only be charismated. So...which is it? Why would I be re-baptized? "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins," but I am not the first person I know who may be re-baptized upon entering an Orthodox church. Can any of you good theologians (that's all of you!) clear this up? Thanx.

If you were baptised in the name of the F, S, and HS, then the Antiochian priest is wrong to say he would baptise you, from the POV of his Church. Met. Philip has said that Protestants may not be baptised if they are baptised in the name of the Trinity and with water.

Nicholas is right that normatively baptism is by triple immersion, but the Church has accepted single immersions and pouring baptisms before when accepting converts.

Please note that there is no one way to receive converts as different practices have existed at different times and places (the same is true of Roman Catholics) for different reasons. The Church may decide to receive you by one method that say a hypothetical friend may not have received based on any number of reasons.

As I understand it, Chrismnation is done it completes a Baptism performed by a heterodox when this ekonomia is used. So what does the other initiation forms do like just annointing with (non-chrism) oil, since it is not reception by a Sacrament?

As I understand it, Chrismnation is done it completes a Baptism performed by a heterodox when this ekonomia is used. So what does the other initiation forms do like just annointing with (non-chrism) oil, since it is not reception by a Sacrament?

It is the same service used to reconcile Orthodox who became Muslims and returned, but with a few of the prayers changed. The OCA introduced it officially in 1989 because some people were chrismating Byzantine Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians with the prayers and formulas for "first time" chrismation so the Synod apparently wanted to have a service with anointing that nevertheless was not first-time chrismation.

I'd also suggest you think about the ramifications of what you are saying (that it is not a sacrament in itself). The Orthodox Church never defined 7 sacraments and certainly this service was considered a sacrament previously when administered to apostates. The Catholic convert is anointed with chrism, not with anointing oil.

I will look through my articles on reception of converts to try and find more details--I promised you this before but I am very busy. Just keep reminding me.

I'm new to this board, and I really think this is an interesting board. I was received into the Orthodox Church two years ago (Holy Saturday) and was received by chrismation. I had been baptized by immersion in the name of the Trinity (I was formerly Southern Baptist).

As far as whether confession is done prior to your reception into the Church, I understand that this depends on the jurisdiction. The OCA requires confession before baptism and/or chrismation for adults, but I understand that others don't. Personally, I am thankful that I got to do it, as it allowed me to get everything out into the open. My priest did tell me that chrismation does absolve you of all your sins prior to chrismation.

If you don't mind me asking, why did you insist on a stronger way of being received? As you will learn from reading the archives, I personally am still a Byzantine Catholic as I wait to see if my wife will convert with me to Orthodoxy, and I am attending St. Vladimir's Seminary. I would JUMP at the chance to be received by profession of faith and have actually lined up some priests who will receive me that way because I feel very strongly against being chrismated as my means of reception.*

anastasios

(*some will say, "that's not very Orthodox of you to try and arrange your own reception!" but I would respond with, "so what? It's my conscience that I have to live with!")

My priest was bending over backwards to welcome me, because it is (or was) rare for an American to convert to the Serbian Church. He felt the simpler ceremony would be enough. I had done a great deal or reading and preparation before I was received. Bishop Timothy (Ware) states clearly in his book: The Orthodox Church" that Chrismation is the norm. I expressed my concern to the Priest who took the question to the Bishop. The Bishop favored Chrismation, so that settled it.

Michael

Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like. I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem

Fair enough, sounds good. I'm glad you became Orthodox at any rate. The issue of reception is very complex, though, and I don't think Bp Kallistos should have said chrismation is the norm when the largest Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, receives by profession of faith and confession Catholics.

Really it's a minor quibble though as getting there is the most important part. I will link when I get home an article you might find interesting, which deals with the historical aspects of receiving RC converts into the Orthodox Church.

Without falling into the question of the salvation of heterodox, let me ask a few questions about baptism and chrismationGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂªTo join the Orthodox Church, I would be re-baptized (at least, this sounds like an option). The Church would not view this as re-baptism, or it would be anti-creedal and they would not do it. Because they view my first “baptism” as invalid, they see my baptism into the Orthodox Church as my first real baptism. This means that, until I join the Orthodox Church, I am not baptized. Because baptism is a sacrament, it imparts grace partially by its physical action; this grace being namely, “the remission of sins.” According to the Orthodox, I have not been baptized. Therefore, I do not have “remission of sins.” That means I am still guilty of my sins, and damned in their eyes. This is fine (in that loose sense of the word J ), but what exactly is chrismation? If I were only chrismated, what does that do? If baptism remits sin, and I am view as not having been baptized, and therefore am guilty of my sins, what will chrismation do? In the view of the Orthodox Church, is a baptized anyone-other-than-Orthodox still guilty of his sins? My soteriology is very “Western,” (I am/was very Protestant), and they don’t have chrismationGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âªalong the same lines as this, what is the difference between anointing with chrism and chrismation? (Don’t they mean the same thing?) Also, what is confession and profession? Thanx.

I have no idea why this is highlighted - it wasn't a few minutes ago. Sorry. Anyone know how to make it go away?

Anointing with chrism is a reconciliation sacrament used in history to reconcile people such as apostates to the Orthodox Church. It differs from chismation in that chismation is the reception of the fullness of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I do not deny that there is some grace lingering in the Antiochian Church (sort of how St. Basil, in his First Canon, spoke of grace lingering in schismatic groups). However, I do not think they were able to bring me into the Orthodox Church, no. By their various activities, and especially accepting the anti-chalcedonians, the Patriarch and American Metropolitan (and, no doubt, others) have seperated themselves from God. But there is still a chance for repentance! "draw near to God and he will draw near to you"

Thanks for the clarification. At least you are being consistent. However, since you were baptised by heretics and chrismated by schismatics, perhaps you would do better to join one of the Old Calendarist Churches that deny N.C. grace where you could be baptised and start anew, not having to interact with New Calendarists at all. I am not saying I would AGREE with that but perhaps it would set your soul at ease.

I meant that I became Orthodox through confession/communion in the ROCOR Church, I just didn't want to make this a ROCOR vs. Antiochian thing Regarding being Antiochian, I started attending an Antiochian Church in the summer of 2001 (I had been attending OCA Churches before that, but had moved to a new city). I became a catechumen in that Church and was christmated by the Antiochians in Dec. 2001. I had always been a traditionalist, but I stayed in the Antiochian Church for a while as it seemed like the most sensible thing at the time. By the fall of 2002 it was becoming increasingly obvious to me that my traditionalist views clashed with certain Antiochian practices and beliefs, hence I distanced myself (and because of the communing of anti-chalcedonians I didn't attend the local Antiochian Church, even though it was where I had been chrismated and where my God father attended).

This is not to say I became a raging Antiochian hater, I just distanced myself. Actually, my wife and I had started a yahoo list at that time, and two of the first people we invited were an Antiochian Priest and an Antiochian Deacon we knew. Even with my (now) harder, further-to-the-right stance, I would still like to maintain friendly relations with those I know in "world Orthodoxy," though that's really up to them (I understand that my beliefs are probably very offensive to them).

Oddly enough, even after I broke off relations for the anti-chalcedonian reason, I allowed an Antiochian priest (who also communed anti-chalcedonians) to marry my wife and I. The reason for this, however, was that we were both living in a homeless shelter at the time, and the only way to get out of that situation was to get an apartment together. We had already had months of pre-marital counselling, and had been engaged for about 9 months. So, since we didn't have any real-life, non-internet, relations with a traditionalist priest at the time (since there were none around our area), we had an Antiochian Priest marry us so that we wouldn't be "shacking up". At the time, I held to a Cyprianite ecclesiology, which meant that I was "walled off" from the Antiochians, but didn't deny that they had grace. So because of this, I held to the notion at the time that it was ok to refrain from receiving communion from Antiochians, but that it was ok for an Antiochian priest to marry me and my wife so that we wouldn't be shacking up. I don't say that this was an unhypocritical or good way of going about things; but it was what we felt we had to do at the time. We felt in both situations (walling off and getting married) that we were choosing the lesser of two undesirable choices.

We didn't consider ourselves Antiochian at the time, but rather Orthodox traditionalists who were waiting for a better situation so that we could move closer to a ROCOR Church. We didn't deny the Antiochians had grace at the time, and our distancing was more of a preventive measure than a statement about whether they had grace or not. In March of this year my wife and I confessed and communed at a ROCOR Church, and thereby entered into that jurisdiction (and soon after would get a spiritual father in that jurisdiction). Since that time, as I've prayed and thought about the issues more, and explored 20th century traditionalist thought, I've seen more and more the untenable nature of the ecclesiology I was holding to. It's not that Cyprianite ecclesiology is wrong... it's just past the time for it. Once concelebrations and communion with anti-chalcedonians started, then things had been taken too far. That's a subjective statement (who says that that's too far? based against what objective criterion for determining how far is too far?), but that's what I believe at the present. Not everyone in ROCOR believes as I do, and that's perfectly fine with me; they too are making a subjective judgment (they think that those who have lapsed haven't lapsed quite enough yet for statements like I'm making to be made).

Many will probably fear that I will walk right out of Orthodoxy entirely. I can only say that I am guarding as best I can against "super-correctness" disease. I am trying to avoid groups where this mentality appears. To what extent I myself am infected by this disease, I don't know. Please pray for me.

Well if I gave too little information then people would have made assumptions that weren't true to the situation. E.g., people would hear what I say and automatically assume that I'm just some nutball who doesn't know how much he's offending people; when the truth is that it's been a struggle and I went through a lot of "stuff" to get here, and I do not say things lightly or just to flippantly judge or condemn.

PS. And you said that something I had said was misleading, so I was just making sure it was all clear

I became Orthodox about five months ago. In a very unique situation (which I suggest others avoid at all costs), I became Orthodox through confession and communion.

Dear Justin,

A question. Why did you enter ROCOR via confession and communion if you feel the way you do about the Antiochians? Wouldn't this require/have required you to seek entrance into ROCOR by, at the very least, Chrismation?

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

At the time I believed that the Antiochians had grace in their sacraments, it was just that I was "walled off" from them because I thought they were in danger of placing themselves outside of the Church. The priest who confessed/communed me (and other ROCOR priests I talked to at the time) considered my Antiochian chrismation to be a grace-filled, Orthodox sacrament. They didn't view me as being non-Orthodox, then, and neither did I; that is just something I believe (I'm pretty sure) now.

The priest who confessed/communed me (and other ROCOR priests I talked to at the time) considered my Antiochian chrismation to be a grace-filled, Orthodox sacrament. They didn't view me as being non-Orthodox, then, and neither did I; that is just something I believe (I'm pretty sure) now.

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm pushing the point, and if you don't want to answer this here, I understand, but how does this mesh with your situation now? Do you want to, or are you planning on, asking to be baptised? Is that even possible for you in ROCOR since you've already been received, or would you have to join another group?

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

Hypo-Ortho

To ask to be baptized now after you've been Chrismated and that Chrismation has been recognized by the ROCOR is like asking the ROCOR now to backtrack and say, "Oh, that Chrismation is now invalid. It was valid before and we recognized it, but we don't now because you don't feel comfortable with it." Is this the scenario, Justin? I don't want to push any buttons either, but I should hope that the ROCOR has enough integrity to stand by its original decision. Otherwise, Sacramental Theology is being seriously undermined.

No, ROCOR would not "rebaptize me" (or rechrismate me) now. Whatever the status or efficacy of former sacraments, I am now Orthodox (even if only Orthodox through Confession/Communion), so there is no need for me to get anything "done again," nor would they do so even if I wanted it done.

When I was looking forward to my Chrismation date, I called my only Orthodox friend, who (unbeknownst to me at the time) belongs to a Jerusalem Patriarchate parish. Since she was the one who had a lot to do with my decision to convert, I thought she'd be delighted, but no. She said I had to be rebaptized. She was adamant. I told her my priest said I was not to be rebaptized, and he was my spiritual father, and I wasn't going to start my new Orthodox life with an act of rebellion, but she was insistent. I finally had to tell her that we would not be talking about this anymore. She called back and apologized for the ruckus but still said she was right. My priest thought this was a demonic attack to steal my joy over being received into the Orthodox Church. Now that I've been chrismated she's nice to me and all but I don't think she believes I'm "really" Orthodox. (And if you happen to stumble onto this forum, dear friend, and read this, I still love you!!!)

I have mixed feelings about the JP. I like how they maintain a traditional Orthodox practice. But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions. The Church never had a set practice of baptising all converts, so don't worry about it; just follow the rules of the Church you are joining.

But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.

Come'on Anastasios, every jurisdiction LazarPuhalos (can I create that word and use it as a verb? ) every once in a while. Don't be so quick to point fingers, we all got tares or warts. My wife's OCA spiritual father, at one point, forbade my wife from attending a ROCOR Church (even though one of her best friends was ROCOR). All jurisdictions have their unfortunatalities (can I create that word too? ); I'm one of them, I should know!

But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.

Come'on Anastasios, every jurisdiction LazarPuhalos (can I create that word and use it as a verb? ) every once in a while. Don't be so quick to point fingers, we all got tares or warts. My wife's OCA spiritual father, at one point, forbade my wife from attending a ROCOR Church (even though one of her best friends was ROCOR). All jurisdictions have their unfortunatalities (can I create that word too? ); I'm one of them, I should know!

Re: OCA priest: sounds particular to this priest. My priest, (OCA and rather conservative), would have no problem if I attended a ROCOR parish - he even encouraged former parishoners who moved away to go to a ROCOR parish (well, especially since the ROCOR parish was one of only two in a reasonable distance).

But they engage is some really questionable stuff, like communing deposed priests from other jurisdictions.

Come'on Anastasios, every jurisdiction LazarPuhalos (can I create that word and use it as a verb? ) every once in a while. Don't be so quick to point fingers, we all got tares or warts. My wife's OCA spiritual father, at one point, forbade my wife from attending a ROCOR Church (even though one of her best friends was ROCOR). All jurisdictions have their unfortunatalities (can I create that word too? ); I'm one of them, I should know!

Justin,

Yes, I know that all jurisdictions do wacky things. It just seems to me that the JP takes advantage of the wackiness of other jurisdictions... :-

But like I said, I have "mixed feelings" about them. Some of their people online really impress me. I have not met any in person though yet.

This is an interesting thread. If someone is received into the EOx Church say, by confession and profession of faith, would he then be free to receive the Eucharist in another EOx Church with more rigorous requirements for converts?

This is an interesting thread. If someone is received into the EOx Church say, by confession and profession of faith, would he then be free to receive the Eucharist in another EOx Church with more rigorous requirements for converts?

Yes, because all Churches in the Orthodox communion recognize each other's sacraments.

Hypo-Ortho

The ROCiE is in schism from the ROCOR, from which it sprang, and is not in communion with any recognized Eastern Orthodox Church, Peter. Likewise the HOCNA. A few of the "True" (Old Calendarist) Orthodox Churches are recognized only because of their tenuous relationship with the ROCOR, but then, I have seen one SCOBA jurisdiction (ACROD) even refer to the ROCOR itself as "semi-canonical," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Personally, I have no problems with the ROCOR, but they do have some strange bedfellows, IMHO.

Every Church has its "semi-with us" counterpart. For instance, the Ethiopian Church in the USA has/had a schismatic metropolitan. The EO has "true" counterparts, some of whom I personally have sympathy for and some of whom I do not (again, not like my opinion is the standard!) That's why I said, "all Churches in the Orthodox communion" because the "true" varieties are not technically in the Orthodox communion (just like the SSPX is a Catholic Church but is in schism from the RCC).

Here is a sampling of the Isabel Florence Hapgood's Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic APostolic Chorch Seventh Edition, 1996, "Office for the Receiving into the Orthodox Faith such persons as have not been presviously Orthodox" (pp. 455-

Bishop/Priest: Wilt thou renounce the errors and false doctrines of the Roman-Latin (or Armenian, or Lutheran, or Reformed) Confession?

And he shall reply: I will.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou desire to enter into and abide in the communion of the Orthodox Catholic Faith?

Answer: I do.

Then the Bishop/Priest, rising signeth him with his right hand, in the form of a cross saying:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

(I'll skip to the Renunciations)

(Convert from the Roman/Latin Confession)

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Savior Jesus Christ himself: "who preceedeth from the Father": doth not siffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?

Answer: I do

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, that is to say, of the whole Church?

Answer: I do.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor: And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles?

Answer: I do.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the Oecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by Councils?

Answer: I do.

Bishop/Priest: Dost thou renounce all the other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the Seven Oecumenical Councils?

Answer: I do.------------------------

So that is the specific Hapgood renunciation of a Latin Catholic who desires to enter Orthodoxy; the service is quite impressive.

Just thought I would give those who have never read it a nibble .

Before I purchased this little gem I had no idea that Isabel Hapgood was a Protestant Episcopalian ; It seems when the Episcopal Church was in good favor with Orthodox at that time it was seen as containing some hope for reconciliation.

I her Preface she writes:

:I have used the King James version of the Bible for the Scripture lessons; and the Psalter contained in the Book of Common Prayer for the Psalms and Verses, with occasional exceptions, when the exigencies of the Slavonic version or adaption to special cases or services required slight changes...I alone am personally responsible for everything: the suggestion that the book was needed, and the plan without which it would have been impossible; for the execution; for ocassional invented words, and for the language, in general and particular, except in the case of the incomparable rendering of the Prayer of St. Chrysostom, which I have taken from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer; and of course from the passages from the Bible as above stated."

Very interesting indeed. And this all was approved by Patriarch Tikon. Aside from a few latinizations it is a nice resource; although if I was clergy I would only use it as a reference and not a Service Book, since we have moved forward in scholarship and have better Liturgikons et al these days.

In Christ,

Alexis

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

Hapgood was used to the letter when my family and I were received into Holy Orthodoxy through the offices of the OCA from the Unia--indeed, the priest receiving us did not differentiate us from the Latins because, as he said, we held the same faith as the Latins. And so, we were Chrismated, Confessed and Communed just like Latins would have been, and not merely just Confessed and Communed with a Profession of Faith as most Liturgikons would have had it for Uniates. Of course, this was more than 25 years ago.

Hapgood was used to the letter when my family and I were received into Holy Orthodoxy through the offices of the OCA from the Unia--indeed, the priest receiving us did not differentiate us from the Latins because, as he said, we held the same faith as the Latins. And so, we were Chrismated, Confessed and Communed just like Latins would have been, and not merely just Confessed and Communed with a Profession of Faith as most Liturgikons would have had it for Uniates. Of course, this was more than 25 years ago.

Hypo-Ortho

I find this interesting since it is my understanding that the idea was not so much what the faith was, but if the form of the sacrament was correct. Uniates were only confessed versus chrismation because their Catholic chrismation was done "the right way" externally whereas the Latins were anointed on the forehead only.

It seems this thread kinda shows how fractioned the Church really is. Between the thousands of protestant sects and the many Orthodox sects and then the different sects all claiming to be Catholic we have a real mess.How sad for our commonly professed faith in One Lord One Faith One baptismPeace,Polycarp

Again, it is case-by-case, but I do remember a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox priest I talked to tell me his Jurisdiction, ACROD, will only confess/commune Eastern Catholics. Some ACROD parishes, he told me, will just register them and require nothing except sacramental participation and STEWARDSHIP . Can we say EEECCCCOOOONNNNOOOOMMMMIIIIIIAAAAA!

Sheeesh!

But hey they are so close and nearly identicle maybe registration may "fill in" the Grace that was lacking

Logged

Hypo-Ortho

Alexis, in the days when we were received into Holy Orthodoxy, the "Byzantine-Slavonic-Greek" Catholics of Ruthenian Rite were outdoing the Latins in the profession of their ROMAN Catholicism. Who cannot remember the image of Bishop Nicholas T. Elko of Pittsburgh?!

It was the Melkites at their eparchial seminary in Newton, MA, who provided the bridge from the Unia to Orthodoxy for me.

Bishop Elko (As I am sure he liked to be called) was before I was born. My former priest told me he introduced alot of "novus ordoism" into Ruthenian parishes; like taking away the icon screens and celebrating "mass" facing the people. It sounded like a scary time for the Ruthenian Church. I don't think all the Ruthenian parishes experimented like that though. Tell us some stories; it would be nice to know.

Elko was literally taken hostage by the Vatican (they took away his passport on an ad lumina visit) until he got a reporter to do an expose so he could escape. The Vatican let him remain a bishop--only they made him a LATIN bishop and forbade him to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the USA ever again (he would slip into Canada sometimes when he "missed it"). He was an Archbishop but they made him coajudictor (sp?) to the Latin BISHOP of Cincinatti--something unprecedented in the life of the Church. When his bishop died he tried to take posession of the Cathedral--the priests locked him out ;-)

He even wrote a book about his experience getting kicked out of the Metropolia. The villian of the book, "the wiley Seminary dean" was actually the future Bp Andrew Pataki, still in power in Passaic. Very interesting.

Not to mention other Byz. Cath highlights, like when the descendent of Maria Theresa, an Austrian princess (titular) walked through the royal doors and received communion in the hand at the altar in the 1950's era consecration of Bp Daniel Ivanch in Pittsburgh, or the discovery later that Bp Ivancho was married, leading to his resignation as bishop...

ah, the Ruthenians. You can't get enough of them! (I like em though very much!)

Hypo-Ortho

It was the little things, like saying the "Hail Mary" the right way, i.e., the Latin way.

The emphasis on the once-a-year "Peter's Pence" collection for the support of the Vatican, moreso than in any Latin parish.

The complete brick wall put up when I suggested that the "Filioque" be removed from the Creed during Liturgy, as I experienced it at the Melkite seminary.

The complete ignorance of the Apostles' Fast, to which I was introduced for the first time at the Melkite seminary--and it put me in shock that this was completely and utterly neglected and ignored in my Ruthenian Rite parish.

some of whom I do not (again, not like my opinion is the standard!) That's why I said, "all Churches in the Orthodox communion" because the "true" varieties are not technically in the Orthodox communion (just like the SSPX is a Catholic Church but is in schism from the RCC).

I was just trying to prise the can open a little

But seriously, is the True Church of XYZ not Orthodox because it is not in communion with 'mainline' EO?

Was ECOF Orthodox when it was under the care of a mainline church, did it cease to be Orthodox when it wasn't and then did it become Orthodox again under the Rumanians?

I guess I mean is communion a measure of Orthodoxy? It is an indicator but is it a strict test?

I have had similar experiences as Hypo-Orthodox with the Byzantine Church I used to belong to. Worshipping in that church one would think they were in a Roman church. No iconostasis, no Holy Communion with young children, Rosary sessions, and a 40 minute Divine Liturgy. It was very different from the Ukrainian Catholic Churchs I belonged to in Rhode Island and California. The Ukrainian churchs had the liturgy very similar to the OCA Orthodox chuch I belong to now. It at least seems to me from my personal experiences that the Ukrainain Catholics are more conservative and more Orthodox in their liturgy than the Ruthenians.

Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name. For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w

Again, it is case-by-case, but I do remember a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox priest I talked to tell me his Jurisdiction, ACROD, will only confess/commune Eastern Catholics. Some ACROD parishes, he told me, will just register them and require nothing except sacramental participation and STEWARDSHIP . Can we say EEECCCCOOOONNNNOOOOMMMMIIIIIIAAAAA!

Sheeesh!

But hey they are so close and nearly identicle maybe registration may "fill in" the Grace that was lacking

I belong to an ACROD parish. ACROD is Orthodox.

I am not familiar with the procedure by which Byzantine Catholics are admitted to the Church, but I have every confidence in our Metropolitan to do what is right.

As for that remark about ACROD being "nearly identicle [sic]" to Byzantine Catholicism, that is only true insofar as Byzantine Catholicism resembles Orthodoxy in general. If ACROD is nearly identical to Byzantine Catholicism, then so are the OCA, the Antiochians, the Greeks, and every other Orthodox church - even ROCOR.

You should stop and think before offering careless and unsupported (except by hearsay) criticism of an Orthodox diocese and, by implication, its bishop.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2003, 09:42:45 AM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

It was a tongue in cheek post. Apologies for the mis-understanding. And yes, your Jurisdiction is most certainly in union with the EP and therefore is recognized as Orthodox at least by the mainline Jurisdictions.

The reality is that ethnic Orthodox Jurisdictions that have a parrallel with Eastern Catholic Churches tend to use the most economy in reception. As my example with yours, but some priests may be more stricter in the reception of converts; indeed it is wrong to generalize.

As for that remark about ACROD being "nearly identicle [sic]" to Byzantine Catholicism, that is only true insofar as Byzantine Catholicism resembles Orthodoxy in general. If ACROD is nearly identical to Byzantine Catholicism, then so are the OCA, the Antiochians, the Greeks, and every other Orthodox church - even ROCOR.

History lesson:

1. Ruthenians are the most latinized BCs.

2. ACROD separated from them over disciplinary matters in the 1930s and for decades after was practically indistinguishable from them, RC practices and all. (Two sources have told me that into the 1960s they still used the filioque in the Creed. This schism obviously wasn't really about niceties of doctrine! An ethnic turf war, vs. the RCs, from the get-go.)

3. This is changing for a few reasons: ACROD today is more like other Orthodox with only a residual RC practice here or there - an older archpriest who goes by 'Monsignor' and wears a monsignorial cassock (like the late Mgr John Yurcisin, who died this year), and maybe a church somewhere that still binates (two Liturgies in a day by the same priest and/or on the same altar). After 60+ years nominally under the Greeks they were bound to adapt. Today, about the only distinction from other Orthodox that's obvious is the unique Ruthenian music. Another reason is, thanks to being kicked in the pants by Rome, Ruthenian Catholics themselves are halfheartedly delatinizing. And finally, thanks to ecumenism, the two groups now talk to each other and work on some things together, which makes perfect sense since ACROD today, a small group, consists largely of born members.

Interesting history lesson, but my own personal experience has been quite different. I have only experienced the latter part of the history you described. My own parish has almost no persons of actual Carpatho-Russian descent and is made up of converts (from both Protestantism and RCism) and immigrants (Russians, Greeks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, etc.).

We are not as viscerally anti-Roman Catholic as some I have seen within Orthodoxy, but we have no Latin practices or doctrines.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â³ Aged one month - I entered Holy Church through Baptism with water (probably by pouring) in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in the Episcopal Church. The church where I later went to Sunday School wasn't 'high' but definitely was conservative, which is why to this day I don't buy the new trends in religion, so I am grateful. Two of my teachers were high-church, though, and I have been following that course ever since, thanks to them and to clues I picked up from history lessons and from the culture in general.GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â³ Aged 17 - received the oil of Confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, 1984. Within the next nine months, began the habit on my own of going to Confession, learning how to examine my conscience from a confessor from the old school. A moral theology I use to this day.(I won't debate here the issue of such sacraments having grace in themselves or not according to the Eastern Orthodox point of view.)GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â³ Aged 29 - received into the Eastern Orthodox communion simply through Confession and Communion, 1995. No formal catechesis but had read Timothy Ware and Seraphim (Rose) and had been worshipping at Eastern churches regularly for three years prior.GÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â³ Been with current congregation since 1997.

Though I am still in the process of converting and catechesis, I've already spoken with Father about my reception into the church: I will be baptized. I was raised Baptist, but they did not practice infant or child baptism, only "believer's baptism." And when I became a believer, I also became a believer in Orthodoxy, so I've never been baptized. I'm looking quite forward to it!

Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!

I was Chrismated, having been baptised as an infant in the name of the Trinity in the Episcopal Church, and haveing had a second, regrettable, immersion baptism in the name of the Trinity by an independent fundamentalist church. The Antiochian priest who Chrismated me was loath to consider both prior acts, having been done in the name of the Trinity, to be totally without grace. I had to admit a fair sense of relief on my part - it was bad enough having a second baptism, a third would have even more confusing.

I haven't searched so much about the OCA Exarchate here but as far as I know they receive people by simple confession and communion. I know this is not the case of the United States in which Catholics are received throught Chrismation.

The ROCOR in Argentina, for example, receives people by Chrismation. I was told by a Costa Rica priest that this is because the Latin American Catholic is much closer to the Orthodox Church than an Angloamerican Catholic. After all, Latin American Catholics' spirituality is close to that of Orthodoxy (proccessions, icons, reverence, etc) and its not so contaminated with modernism and Protestantism as in the United States or Britain. Maybe this is why Archbishop Dimitri, who is very traditional, supports simple communion for the reception of converts in the case of Mexican people.

It's also curious that the Serbian Church, which is the one that suffered the most under the Latins, the Croatians in particular, who used to re-baptize them in WWII, is very open to the reception of converts from Catholicism by simple confession and communion. A friend from Canada was received in a Serbian parish that way, without any obstacle.